|
|
Dear George Dishman:
"George Dishman" <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ddbe4n$o58$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@xxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote in message news:wTpJe.286569$Qo.235834@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Dear George Dishman:
>>
>> "George Dishman" <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:dd4i06$di0$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> ...
>>>> If we were on the inside of an event horizon, we could
>>>> not see beyond that
>>>
>>> That is not correct. Light does not pass out
>>> across the horizon but it does fall in.
>>
>> But (outer) space becomes (inner) timelike.
>
> This is the area I'm less sure about but I think
> that is an artefact of the Schwarzchild coordinates
> and it get resolved using Kruskal but please check
> that, I could easily be wrong.
Probably not. The answers I find I cannot yet understand.
URL:http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9905144
URL:http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/0406109
Kruskal does not appear to do away with timelike...
URL:http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9904162
... but this "fellow" seem to say that the singularity is
*coincident* with "just inside the event horizon". Which would
be true for the container Universe... just don't know how the
paper fared in peer review.
>> So any light that falls in loses any correlation to frequency,
>> or momentum. Only energy would be conserved, right?
>
> No, have you looked at Andrew Hamilton's animations?
>
> http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/schw.shtml
External objects end up sweeping an arc across the sky. Other
objects in other places do the same. Definitely NOT specular
images. And this is a non-rotating BH, which adds yet another
twist (literally) to the infalling light. And note that in the
simulation, the external-Universe stars don't change color.
> This paragraph and image show the view of external
> objects from 0.35 Schwarzschild radii:
>
> http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/singularity.html#distortion
>
> The blue, orange and green shapes are the other
> stars in his hypothetical double binary system.
Yes. Unfortunately, if outer-r becomes timelike, the entire
history of the container Universe is written on the inner Big
Bang... at least until the contained Universe evaporates.
Anything that ever (outer-time) infalls, arrvies at the inner
"Big Bang".
>>> If
>>> you could hover just inside the event horizon
>>> you would be bombarded by high energy photons
>>> falling in.
>>
>> I don't agree, and I can't quite tell you why that is.
>> Ultimately I think it is because you cannot hover just
>> inside the event horizon, since to do so would be to
>> stop time.
>
> Indeed, I was glossing over that.
>
>> So if you infall at a rate of 1 second per second, the
>> light should be received at finite energy, since your
>> "motion along the time axis" is also closely correlated
>> to c.
>
> True but the point was simply that you would
> still receive photons from outside.
Still receive photons is not at issue. Are they specular? No.
Are they diffuse? Yes and no. Is the surfaceo-of-last-emission
transparent? No. Is the "photon historical record" of infalling
light through the event horizon isothermal?
> <snip question to Tom>
It may not have an answer that I can understand.
>> The classical surface of last emission is not within the
>> Universe inside the event horizon. The closest "place"
>> in this Universe is "just inside the event horizon". You
>> can't see beyond it. It is opaque, if you accept my
>> "abomination" of the word. We won't get specular images
>> from before the CMBRM... either way.
>
> Well it is certainly opaque around 379,000 years
> because we have the photos ;-) I'm not aware of
> any other "classical surface of last emission"
> though.
This is my quest. I wonder if the "structures" were already
formed (coalescence not a problem), the Universe-filling gas,
wasn't Universe filling (the non-issue of absoprtion spectra
disappears), and the CMBRM is a/the "photographic record" of our
container Universe.
>>>> The Schwarzchild solution to GR for a black hole,
>>>> describes another Universe inside the black hole, with
>>>> internal time starting where external space leaves off.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure about that, it seems to depend on
>>> the coordinate system you use but I know too
>>> little of GR to comment sensibly.
>>
>> You are no more God than I am. You have tried on the hat
>> more than once, in an effort to help me (and those that
>> might someday have these or related questions). For that
>> I thank you. Some questions are so poorly worded that
>> they cannot be understood, and some questions just
>> cannot be answered. I'm thinking I've formulated the former,
>> but you never know. ;>)
>
> I think you are being misled by the coordinate
> feature of the Schwarzschild solution. Perhaps
> after looking at Andrew's site, you could
> reformulate the question.
I can't. Bjoern tried to help me "get it", but the ground is
rocky, and crops will not (yet) grow. I'm not dead yet, so maybe
there is hope.
> ...
>>> I am sure that the H/He mix was present because
>>> we see the radiation from it in the form of the
>>> CMBR,
>>
>> This is not conclusive, but *assumed*. That is the
>> crux of my problem.
>
> The mix is not assumed, it is observed in
> primitive stars and other ways.
It isn't the mix, George. It is the distribution. From nearly
patternless to fully coalesced in less than 1 Gy. A universal
*smooth* distribution can't coalesce under the effects of
gravity. So we started out pretty lumpy (which we are still
working on resolving).
> It also
> predicted from nucleosynthesis as the best
> fit to other measurements as I said below.
> Check the bands in the diagram at the bottom
>
> http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/BBNS.html
>
> You are right we assume that is the source,
> but at a high enough temperature you get a
> black body from any mix. Why do you think
> this is a problem?
As I have said, my "hypothesis" allows for structures to be found
right up to the CMBRM, even for heavier elements to be present
from the "get go". And since infalling light is not fatally blue
shifted for those that are "falling towards the singularity", the
CMBRM is not necessary to have protected us from the "fires of
creation".
>> It is a perfect blackbody radiator, with some hint of
>> structure
>> (variable intensity) written in/on it. The Universe should
>> have
>> been mostly hydrogen and helium. Therefore the CMBRM
>> must be mostly hydrogen and helium. A logical chain, just
>> not one I am fond of.
>>
>>> it is predicted by nucleosynthesis and we can see the
>>> mix in primeval stars. I can be sure it was opaque for
>>> over 300k years from lab experiments and WMAP. I
>>> can't be sure what we would have seen had it not
>>> existed, but then we wouldn't be here to see anything.
>>
>> I don't agree with "lab experiments" since we cannot
>> generate an opaque plasma in the lab.
>
> No but we can measure the cross section of the
> particles and calulate the depth need for the
> plasma to be opaque.
>
>> I also don't agree with the infalling light being necessarily
>> fatal.
>
> I wasn't really saying that earlier.
I wasn't sure what you meant by:
>>> I
>>> can't be sure what we would have seen had it not
>>> existed, but then we wouldn't be here to see anything.
... perhaps that there would be no matter for us to be comprised
of...
>> If Joe were to don a spacesuit, and fall into the BH at the
>> center of the Milky Way, would the infalling light kill him?
>> No. If other stuff didn't kill him (with differential orbital
>> velocity)
>> he'd just see infalling light that became more and more
>> distorted
>> (non-specular).
>
> That was my point, even after crossing the
> event horizon, you would still be able to
> see the part of the universe you had left
> hence the horizon cannot be opaque.
There is no part of the external Universe that extends into the
internal Universe. What you see, perhaps, is all the positions
and all the intensities of all the stars, and the container
Universe's CMBR, spread across 2 pi steradians... for all time.
Neglecting expansion, which only serves to red shift the
panopoly. It *is* opaque, it is NOT specular. You cannot see
before the Big Bang, even without a CMBRM.
And if we can...
David A. Smith
|
|